[jordanpg]

Could it be the case that contemporary governments and economies are just simply not structured to be forward thinking in this way?

What if, in analogy to the transition out of feudalism, the next evolution of government and economies is one that allows for spending on future outcomes in a way that is impossible now? I have no idea what those institutions would look like -- I only know that hoping to solve global problems with the caveat that it needs to be profitable for someone has a whiff of obvious nonsense to me. And I also know, that at least in the US, the prospect that the government will implement large-scale change is patent nonsense.

[dv_dt]

It's possible to create a way out of this by taking finance structures and adapting them to service public goods. A climate project bank might issue loan/grant type funding for projects, in a model much like how the U.S. mortgage market and fannie mae works right now. Loans are assessed for risk and financial return, and we can use the same type of transactional examination for a hybrid of risk, financial, and carbon-reducing-sinking effect. Personally, I think issuance of loans at a discount relative to current commercial loan rates (maybe by offering a discount rate based off of a base of Fed rates), would offer strong leverage with elements of responsiveness to market fluctuations.

[peteradio]

What says the end points on the receiving end of the monies don't just jack up the rates similar to the University system in the U.S.?

[dv_dt]

The end points receiving the money don't decide the rates. And because multiple loan originators exist within that structure, they compete to minimize overhead.

[fao_]

> Could it be the case that contemporary governments and economies are just simply not structured to be forward thinking in this way?

I'm confused that this is a quesiton that you're asking, as opposed to something that is blatantly obvious. The United Nations declared as such recently:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-capitalism-eco...

    "Trusting that the free market capitalist dynamics will get us
    there, that of course is not going to happen," report co-author
    Paavo Järvensivu, an academic who specializes in economics and
    culture at Bios, says in a phone call with HuffPost. Economies
    that rely on the power of markets, notes the report, don’t even
    recognize the problem as they’re too focused on short-term
    profits to take account of longer-term issues like climate change
    and environmental destruction.

[NeedMoreTea]

Well going on the tone in the rest of their comment I read that as a firmly tongue in cheek rhetorical question. As in: From the department of the blatantly obvious comes the question "Could it be the case...

By analogy to feudalism that we need a transformative change to something, an unknown something, that is different but a little better at seeing a big picture rather than endless blinkered dogma.

[tom_mellior]

That quote is about markets, not governments. It's not great to mix up those two like the parent did. Governments are moving to mitigate climate change. Not all of them at the same pace, and none at the optimal pace, but things are certainly improving on the government front.

[fao_]

Most current governmental structures are innately intwined with the economic system.

[tom_mellior]

Yes, which is why the government can fix what the market messed up, because market participants weren't charged for the costs of the externalities they are responsible for. Carbon taxes can change that.

[fao_]

At this point, carbon taxes are really pretty much ephemeral, something that is basically too little, too late. You're adding more tax to a pile that the company already doesn't pay.